State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Estate Officer, Puda Complex vs Inderjit Singh on 24 September, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
Misc. Application No.1320 of 2018
In/and
First Appeal No.149 of 2018
Date of Institution : 13.03.2018
Date of Reserve : 21.08.2018
Date of Decision : 24.09.2018
Estate Officer, JDA, S.C.O No.41, PUDA Complex, Ladowali Road,
Jalandhar.
....Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Late S Inderjit Singh, aged 68 Years, son of Late S Jaswant Singh
R/o H.No. B-55/3, New Beant Nagar, PO:PAP Lines, Jalandhar-Pb-
144006
Legal Heirs of Late S.Inderjit Singh, complainant;-
1. Baljit Kaur Wife
2. Jagjot Kaur Daughter
3. Braham Jot Kaur Daughter
4. Sarabjit Kaur Daughter
5. Jasmeen Kaur Daughter
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
21.11.2017 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr.Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.G.S. Arshi, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. B.J. Singh, Advocate First Appeal No 149 of 2018 2 RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL, MEMBER In the present case, original complaint was filed by Inderjit Singh S/o late S.Jaswant Singh. However, during pendency of this complaint, he expired and his LRs were brought on record by District Forum, vide its order dated 21.11.2017. The same were impleaded in the appeal. None appeared on behalf of the LRs No.2 to 5. However, on behalf of Smt. Baljit Kaur, wife of the complainant (LR No.1), Sh.B.J.Singh, Advocate, appeared. The very purpose of impleading the LRs is to defend the complaint. Accordingly, all LRs of the deceased are not required to appear as the decision will have no adverse effect against other LRs.
In view of the above, the service of other LRs No.2 to 5 is ordered to be dispensed with as it will unnecessarily delay the decision.
M.A. No.1320 of 2018
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has moved an application for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the District Forum has ordered to waive of `40,420/- and to issue 'No Due Certificate' along with compensation of `10,000/- which entails the amount of `25,000/- as statutory amount but the appellant has deposited only `5,000/- at the time of filing the appeal, therefore, the appeal be dismissed as infructuous.
First Appeal No 149 of 2018 3
3. Reply to the application has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party, vide which the plea taken by respondent No.1 in her application with regard to deposit of `25,000/- has been denied being wrong. It was submitted that the District Forum awarded the compensation of `10,000/- and accordingly the appellant has deposited `5,000/- i.e. 50% of the awarded amount at the time of filing the appeal. It was prayed that the application moved by respondent No.1 is without merit and be dismissed with cost.
4. We have gone through the order passed by the District Forum and after perusal of the same, it is clear that the compensation of `10,000/- was awarded to the complainant and according to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 50% of the awarded amount is required to be deposited by the appellant, which he has deposited, therefore, we are of the opinion that the application is without merit and is hereby dismissed. Main Appeal
5. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 21.11.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short, 'District Forum'), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant /respondent, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "C.P. Act") was partly accepted and the opposite First Appeal No 149 of 2018 4 party was directed to issue "No Due Certificate" to the LRs of the complainant for getting the transfer of flat No.164 in their name, according to law and further OP was directed to pay compensation of `10,000/- to the complainant for mental harassment. It was further directed that the entire order be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order.
It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum. Facts of the Complaint
6. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that complainant, Inderjit Singh (since deceased) now represented by his LRs i.e. wife and four daughters, applied for allotment of a LIG House, in 1983, from PUDA/ Housing Board and he was allotted H.No.LIG- 341 G.F., at Phagwara (Kapurthala), vide letter No.PBH-Allot-A-3- 85/395-97 dt. 31.12.1985 and installments were being paid regularly. When the complainant visited the spot i.e. LIG H.No.341- GF, at Phagwara he was shocked to see that the dwelling unit was not at all constructed. The matter was brought to the notice of the Housing Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, who in turn allotted LIG H.No.164-GF against the earlier allotted LIG H.No.341-GF, on the same terms and conditions of initial allotment letter for a total cost of `28,888/-. Due to frequent transfers of the complainant, the file of LIG H.No.164-GF got misplaced and could not be traced. First Appeal No 149 of 2018 5 Then, the complainant applied for issuance of duplicate papers, vide Diary No.1113 of 29.08.2013 of PUDA and FIR No.14 was also lodged on 10.09.2013. PUDA forwarded a duplicate copy of allotment letter of LIG H.No.341-GF vide letter No.EO-JDA-S-5- 2013/4782/4985 of 25/09/2013, dated 14/10/2013. PUDA vide letter dated 21.10.2013 bearing No.EO-JD-S-5-2013/5118 asked the complainant to bring the ownership papers of LIG H.No.164-GF sent earlier. Further, it was mentioned that since the required documents were not received, therefore, his file was closed. It is averred that PUDA was well aware about facts that the relevant documents relating to LIG H.No.164-GF are missing and are not traceable and that was the reason that duplicate documents were requested vide PUDA Diary No.1113 of 29.08.2013 and the action is still pending with them. Many times complainant visited the office of PUDA and a lot of correspondence was made, but all in vain. Complainant also sought information under RTI for the same, but no fruitful results were communicated, instead supplied an incomplete information which did not serve any purpose. Complainant requested for "No Dues Certificate" from PUDA to enable him to get his property transferred in his name from competent authority, which is required by PUDA for registration purpose but the same was denied by PUDA on the plea that a sum of `40,420/- is pending whereas the entire cost and interest has been deposited and nothing is outstanding. It was further averred First Appeal No 149 of 2018 6 that the complainant had also deposited few instalments in respect of LIG H.No.341-GF but that was not shown separately whether that was adjusted against LIG H.No.164-GF or not? The complainant has paid `46,515.18 and in addition to that `40,420/- were also demanded by PUDA which is not at all judicially justified and is far from the total cost of `28,888/- of the LIG House. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed the complaint seeking following directions:-
i) to issue No Due Certificate to get the property transferred in the name of the complainant.
ii) to pay `5,00,000/- as compensation for the unlawful,
mental and physical harassment faced by the
complainant.
Defence of the Opposite Parties
7. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed reply and took preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed with special costs. An amount of `40,420/- was demanded from the complainant as balance amount towards him which he had not paid. However, as per calculations, the complainant is liable to pay `41,750/- as on the date of filing the reply. It was further averred that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. First Appeal No 149 of 2018 7
There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. On merits, the allotment of the flat to the complainant was admitted, but payment of regular installments was categorically denied. Rest all other averments made in the complaint were denied and finally prayed to dismiss the complaint.
Finding of the District Forum
8. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel appearing on their behalf, partly accepted the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal by the appellant/opposite party.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. Contentions of the Parties
10. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Forum has wrongly relied upon Ex.C-5 by considering that the respondent has paid excess payment. As LIG H.No.341-GF earlier allotted to respondent was later on reallotted to some other person who had paid the requisite installments, the dealing assistant while replying information under RTI, instead for calculating the amount deposited by the respondent wrongly informed the total amount of `46,515.18 deposited against the said flat, which includes the First Appeal No 149 of 2018 8 amount deposited by the respondent as well as subsequent allottee. The respondent has failed to prove the payment of installments as per terms of the allotment. The District Forum has committed error in not considering the demand due towards the respondent raised vide letter dated 16.03.2015 Ex.C-8. It is further contended that the respondent has not challenged the demand raised vide letter dated 16.03.2015. The order of District Forum to issue "No Objection Certificate" while the demand of the amount is still pending is not legally sustainable. The counsel finally prayed to accept the appeal and to set aside the order passed by the District Forum and to dismiss the complaint.
11. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ complainant argued that the appellant is not himself convinced about the amount allegedly due from respondent. As per reply to appellant under RTI vide letter dated 23.04.2015 Ex.C-5, the appellant informed the respondent that `46,515.18 has been deposited against LIG H.No.341-GF & LIG NO.164-GF and further demanded for `40,420/- without any calculations. Again as per letter dated No.EO-JDA-S2-2018/225 dated 11.01.2018 a demand of Rs.36,926.24 has been made as outstanding dues, which was later withdrawn by the appellant/OP vide No.339 dated 16.01.2018. Respondent was earlier allotted LIG Flat No.341-GF on 31.12.1985 and later on allotted LIG-164 GF vide letter dated 14.07.1986 for a tentative cost of `28,888/- wherein adjustment of initial deposit and First Appeal No 149 of 2018 9 first instalment amounting to `7,483/- was mentioned (Ex.C-1). The respondent deposited installments earlier for 341 GF and then for 164 GF regularly. Due to frequent transfers, complainant got misplaced the file papers of 164 GF and he could not trace them. The respondent applied on prescribed forms for issuance of duplicate papers of LIG 164 GF on 29.08.2013 and also lodged FIR. The appellant did not supply the duplicate papers instead demanded ownership papers before sending the duplicate papers and filed the request letter on 21.10.2013 (Ex.C-9). It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that when the respondent had already requested the opposite party/appellant to issue duplicate papers then how he can produce ownership papers. If he had the ownership papers he would have not requested for duplicate papers of property in question. The information under RTI shows that upto 10.04.2004 an amount of `46,515.18 has been deposited against tentative cost of `28,888/- for LIG Flat No.164 GF as full and final payment. The learned counsel prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost. Consideration of Contentions
12. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
First Appeal No 149 of 2018 10
13. We have gone through the order passed by the District Forum and the grounds of appeal. Earlier the complainant was allotted LIG Flat No.341 GF on 31.12.1985 and subsequently he was allotted another LIG 164 GF on 14.07.1986 in lieu of the earlier Flat No.341 GF for a tentative cost of `28,888/- only. The complainant paid an amount of `46,515.18p from 31.01.1986 to 10.04.2004 as per Ex.C-5 towards the allotment of LIG Flat No.164 GF after adjusting the payments received for earlier allotted Flat No.341. From the pleadings, it is evident that both the parties have no authentic record to show how much payment is due from the allottee and how much he has paid. As per Ex.C-5 the appellant stated that after receiving a payment of `46,515.18 against said property, an amount of `40,420/- is due from the respondent without any calculation on the record and again appellant vide letter dated 11.01.2018 informed that an amount of `36,926.24 is due towards the property in question without producing any record which was later withdrawn by the opposite parties vide letter No.339, dated 16.01.2018. The complainant requested for duplicate record of the property in question and the appellant vide letter dated 21.10.2013 demanded ownership papers of the property which is vague reply to the request of the complainant. If the complainant had ownership papers then there was no need for requesting duplicate papers of property. This shows that neither the First Appeal No 149 of 2018 11 complainant nor the office of the appellant has any record of the property.
14. The plea of the opposite parties that the Dealing Assistant wrongly calculated the amount deposited by the complainant is not acceptable as this is a vital information prepared on the basis of record available in the office and further checked by the senior authorities and it cannot be left at the level of Dealing Assistant which shows that no proper record is maintained by the OP and they themselves cannot ask for any further amount without having any evidence on record. To prove this fact that the Dealing Assistant has wrongly calculated the amount, no affidavit of the Dealing Assistant or any evidence has been placed on the record. Mere pleadings in reply to the complaint that the amount has been wrongly calculated are not enough to prove this fact.
15. The District Forum has rightly observed that the complainant has already paid the entire due amount of LIG H.No.164-GF to the appellant/OP whereas the OP flatly made a lie by stating in para 13 of the written reply that complainant never deposited any installments after rescheduling whereas documents show that the payment has already been made.
16. Sequel to above, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
First Appeal No 149 of 2018 12
17. The appellant had deposited a sum of `5,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum forthwith. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER September 24,2018 parmod